If we accept the dictionary.com definition of a "libertarian", in the broadest of senses, as "one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" then there would seem to be a marked dicontinuity between these broad goals of the libertarian philosophy and the goals of many (if not most) nominal libertarians. I'm only basing this on my limited experiences with these so-called "nominal libertarians" on messageboards such as this one and in real life, but it seems to me that - for all this noble talk of commitment to "individual rights" and "minimising the role of the state" - many libertarians don't really seem to be overly outspoken on, or committed to, anything within the libertarian philosophy other than the unimpeded pursuit of personal wealth.

Perhaps it's just my imagination - or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places - but when I read libertarians discussing their commitment to "freedom", "liberty" and "individualism" it almost always seems to be framed in an economic context and usually in a very narrow economic context at that. The hot-topics for such libertarians tend to include the reduction of taxes, the abolishion or minimisation of government funded instututions (included health-care, education, welfare etc.) and precious little else. Here, it seems, that these libertarians have interpreted the concept of "personal freedom" in solely materialistic terms and that any infringement on the "right" of the individual to accrue property and capital must therefore be a direct infringement on his inherent personal freedoms. The problem here, I believe, stems from a (usually willful) misunderstanding of the mechanics of "human freedom", how it may best be preserved and how the right to the individual maximisation of wealth fits into all this.

Firstly, it seems to be a common misunderstanding that freedom can only be cultivated and preserved on an individual level - that is, that a "free" society is one in which individuals have the maximum amount of "freedom" to act as they please. This perspective is ignorant of the fact that it is only within the context of a "society" - that is, a mass of people living in close geographic proximity with other, sharing a very broad, general ethos - that such freedoms can ever arise (is it possible to be free, for instance, within an anarchic collection of individuals acting, as objectivist libertarians would argue that they would, entirely egoistically? Can such a concept as an inherent right to personal property, for instance, ever exist in such a "society"?). Furthermore, it is only through the method of inter-subjective codification of societal norms that freedoms can ever be preserved (i.e. the concepts of personal property can only ever be preserved where the vast majority of citizens assent to and abide by them). In this sense, the notion of "individual freedom" as many libertarians envisage it (i.e. freedom from society and one's responsibility to it) is self-defeating, as such economic liberty cannot be preserved on an individual basis, only on a societal one.

To quote Thomas Paine from Agrarian Justice:

quote:

Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to mike land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism...justice_03.html

In other words, it makes no sense to speak of "individual property rights" without acknowledging the fact that such rights can only occur within the context of society and the libertarian mantra, therefore, that wealth is accrued individually, solely through hard-work and initiative (and that - therefore - no sense of responsibility is owed to the collective) is completely ill-founded.

Secondly, to continue from the last point, there seems to be some confusion about the correlation between between the concepts of "freedom" and "responsibility". These concepts don't have an inverse relationship (i.e. reponsibility declines as freedom increases), but rather a direct one (i.e. responsibility increases in direct proportion to the increase of freedom). So, as more personal freedoms are granted, the responsibility placed upon the inidividual to act morally increases commensurably.

(This is a difficult existential concept to simply explain, but think of it like this: there is a greater personal onus on the individual with a wide scope of choice to act morally than there is on the individual with a narrow scope of choice. If we are prepared to reject authoritarian moral determinism - that is, institutional moral orthydoxy from the government, churches etc. - and accept, therefore, that we are condemned to choose freely from a virtual infinity of courses of actions, we must also accept that we - solely - are responsible for the actions we commit to. In this sense, if libertarians wish to preach a doctrine of individual freedom, then they must also accept the notion of individual moral responsbility in both a personal and societal context.)

If we therefore view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal freedom, then it stands to reason that we we must also view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal responsibility - both to ourselves and to our fellow man. If the egoistic pursuit of wealth ever transcends this sense of responsbility (and I'm not saying that it necessarily does) then it becomes an inauthentic and self-negating political philosophy. Freedom cannot exist where responsiblity does not and vice-versa.

Thirdly - and this is my main criticism of the "nominal libertarians" I mentioned earlier - rights to property and the accrual of wealth are important rights, but not the most important ones (much less the only ones). To again quote Thomas Paine, this time from Dissertation on First Principles of Government:

quote:

[T]he principle [of representative civil government] requires that every man, and every kind of right, be represented, of which the right to acquire and to hold property is but one, and that not of the most essential kind. The protection of a man's person is more sacred than the protection of property; and besides this, the faculty of performing any kind of work or services by which he acquires a livelihood, or maintaining his family, is of the nature of property. It is property to him; he has acquired it; and it is as much the object of his protection as exterior property, possessed without that faculty, can be the object of protection in another person. I have always believed that the best security for property, be it much or little, is to remove from every part of the community, as far as can possibly be done, every cause of complaint, and every motive to violence; and this can only be done by an equality of rights. When rights are secure, property is secure in consequence.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism...first_prin.html

It never ceases to frustrate me when I see the fervor with which these sorts of libertarians defend the right to the "fruits of their labour" (i.e. paying as little tax as possible) or voice their opposition to the concept of "wealth redistribution" (i.e. any measure that attempts to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in a society) on the grounds of their inherent "right to hold and acquire property", only to see them conspicuously absent in discussions on the preservation of other, more fundamental, issues of human rights and civil liberties. Am I suggesting that no libertarians consider broader freedoms and liberties to be as important as those concerning property? Hardly, but - again speaking only from my limited on-line and real-life experiences - it seems as though many nominal libertarians use this broader philosophy of "maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" to justify their own egoistic pursuits, rather than through any inherent, strongly-held beliefs about the inherent rights of human beings to genuine freedom and liberty. Many fail to realise that it is only through the fervent defense of other, more primary rights, that the right to property can exist at all.

As an example, I point to GOP voting libertarians (such as Shakka, Neo Phono and Imokruok - although not just to these posters, nor only to GOP-voting libertarians) who appear to condone - or at least fail to be vociferous in their opposition to - many of issues that should be central to the libertarian philosophy.

For instance, where is the outrage - that is, the same outrage always directed against progressive taxation and public welfare - against:

• Human rights abuses. (Here's a good place to start.)
  
• Infringments on civil liberties. (For instance anti-choice doctrines concerning gay marriage, abortion and euthenasia, the imposition of the PATRIOT Act, Orwellian "free-speech zones" etc.)
  
• Federalism. (Denying states the right to legislate, independently, on above issues and others.)
  
• Unambiguously interventionalist foreign policies.
  
• Massive, unstainable levels of government spending.

Among other things.

In fact, the only things that I see the GOP and libertarians as having in common currently are:

• Low taxes.
  
• A desire to reform social security and reduce "dependancy" on welfare.
  
• [A lack of] gun control.

Where the government, under the current administration, has grown far larger in far more areas than it ever was under Democratic governments, it seems that the libertarians are prepared to remain quiet so long as no infringements are made on their "property rights" (or, in some cases, "gun rights"). Why is this so? To the GOP-voting libertarians, how can you overlook their gross infringement on so many essential freedoms and liberties (that, in most cases - if you are to believe myself and Thomas Paine - are necessary to preserve these "property rights")? To the non-GOP-voting libertarians (Capitalizt etc.), why do you seem so indifferent in your defense of these liberties? Have I just not been noticing you, or do you genuinely only really care about your "right" to the unimpeded pursuit of wealth?

Note that this isn't just an open slight on the libertarian philosophy, but rather an expression of disappointment in the commitment of some libertarians to its essential aims. As someone who considers himself a "classicial liberal" (influenced heavily, in case you couldn't guess, by Thomas Paine) I should be finding myself siding with you on many, if not most issues. As it happens, though, I seem to find myself either disagreeing with you on many issues (mainly economic ones) or left feeling completely abandoned by your complicit silence on most others (human rights, civil liberties etc.)

So, come on libertarians, here's an open question to all of you:

What do you consider to be most important: the preservation of freedoms and liberties or the size of your wallet?

[Apologies for the long post. It was only meant to be a couple of paragraphs when I first started it. ]

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade For instance, where is the outrage - that is, the same outrage always directed against progressive taxation and public welfare - against: Human rights abuses. (Here's a good place to start.) Infringments on civil liberties. (For instance anti-choice doctrines concerning gay marriage, abortion and euthenasia, the imposition of the PATRIOT Act, Orwellian "free-speech zones" etc.) Federalism. (Denying states the right to legislate, independently, on above issues and others.) Unambiguously interventionalist foreign policies. Massive, unstainable levels of government spending.

Great thread idea.

My aunt & uncle were very active in the founding of the modern Libertarian Party here in IL years ago. Actually they are two of the most knowledgeable people I've ever known in terms of their awareness and interest in items like humans rights abuses & international events.

Despite Fox News' attempts to label them as a liberal organization, the ACLU is more of a libertarian group, which is why they have a variety of liberal & conservative politicians who work with them on free speech issues.

I'd say the problem is that with the U.S. 2 party system, the libertarian perspective gets split between the 2 parties, siding more with Republicans on economic freedom and more with Democrats on social freedom, although technically it is an ideology on the right end of the perspective. The reason the libertarian economic perspective seems more vocal in my opinion is largely (but not completely) due to the GOP's platform, which almost identically echoes the libertarian message on such issues, while the social freedoms are often complicated by religious ideology, national defense and a lack of a concise message from Democrats on such issues. Right now it seems only reforming the Patriot Act has been promoted heavily as an issue of individual personal freedom outside of economics.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,—"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. - Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

quote:

"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest." - Martin Luther King, Jr, Autobiography, Chapter 2

I believe foremost in individual liberty and personal freedom, am an advocate of laissez-faire government, collective altruism and moral responsibility. I greatly oppose corporate excess, institutionalized corruption, and the ever broadening dumbification of society as a whole.

I wish I hadn't drank so many beers this afternoon, because I'm struggling to fully articulate my thoughts in regards to this post. Damn it, this means that I'll have to get back to this tomorrow.

I'm not much of a libertarian, so I don't presume to speak for any of them on this particular issue. That said, I do have some comments to share on this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Firstly, it seems to be a common misunderstanding that freedom can only be cultivated and preserved on an individual level - that is, that a "free" society is one in which individuals have the maximum amount of "freedom" to act as they please. This perspective is ignorant of the fact that it is only within the context of a "society" - that is, a mass of people living in close geographic proximity with other, sharing a very broad, general ethos - that such freedoms can ever arise (is it possible to be free, for instance, within an anarchic collection of individuals acting, as objectivist libertarians would argue that they would, entirely egoistically? Can such a concept as an inherent right to personal property, for instance, ever exist in such a "society"?). Furthermore, it is only through the method of inter-subjective codification of societal norms that freedoms can ever be preserved (i.e. the concepts of personal property can only ever be preserved where the vast majority of citizens assent to and abide by them). In this sense, the notion of "individual freedom" as many libertarians envisage it (i.e. freedom from society and one's responsibility to it) is self-defeating, as such economic liberty cannot be preserved on an individual basis, only on a societal one.

Anyone who truly values individual freedom must be willing to give up the power to control everyone around them.

You cannot say, "everyone should be free to live as they like," and then say "but my neighbor shall not be free to steal my lawn chair." If your neighbor should like to live as a thief, then you've crafted a contradiction.

Even if we turn to anarchy and set no law, and leave everyone completely "free," one should make no mistake: power abhors a vacuum. If everyone is free to live as they like, then those who would like to live as tyrants will do so, and then no-one else will be free to live as they like for long.

It seems to me that what most people want when they ask for freedom is not really freedom at all, it is power. But unlike freedom, the struggle for power is a zero-sum game, for power is only valuable insofar as you have more of it than somebody else.

quote:

In other words, it makes no sense to speak of "individual property rights" without acknowledging the fact that such rights can only occur within the context of society and the libertarian mantra, therefore, that wealth is accrued individually, solely through hard-work and initiative (and that - therefore - no sense of responsibility is owed to the collective) is completely ill-founded. Secondly, to continue from the last point, there seems to be some confusion about the correlation between between the concepts of "freedom" and "responsibility". These concepts don't have an inverse relationship (i.e. reponsibility declines as freedom increases), but rather a direct one (i.e. responsibility increases in direct proportion to the increase of freedom). So, as more personal freedoms are granted, the responsibility placed upon the inidividual to act morally increases commensurably. (This is a difficult existential concept to simply explain, but think of it like this: there is a greater personal onus on the individual with a wide scope of choice to act morally than there is on the individual with a narrow scope of choice. If we are prepared to reject authoritarian moral determinism - that is, institutional moral orthydoxy from the government, churches etc. - and accept, therefore, that we are condemned to choose freely from a virtual infinity of courses of actions, we must also accept that we - solely - are responsible for the actions we commit to. In this sense, if libertarians wish to preach a doctrine of individual freedom, then they must also accept the notion of individual moral responsbility in both a personal and societal context.) If we therefore view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal freedom, then it stands to reason that we we must also view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal responsibility - both to ourselves and to our fellow man. If the egoistic pursuit of wealth ever transcends this sense of responsbility (and I'm not saying that it necessarily does) then it becomes an inauthentic and self-negating political philosophy. Freedom cannot exist where responsiblity does not and vice-versa.

I've always been a strong advocate of individual freedom (as opposed to individual power), and equally a strong advocate of individual responsibility as i've discussed previously: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=175792

The pursuit of wealth is, in my view, a hollow and ultimately unfulfilling pursuit, and therefore undesirable even to the most egocentric individual, provided that individual can see beyond the wasteland of materialism.

quote:

It never ceases to frustrate me when I see the fervor with which these sorts of libertarians defend the right to the "fruits of their labour" (i.e. paying as little tax as possible) or voice their opposition to the concept of "wealth redistribution" (i.e. any measure that attempts to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in a society) on the grounds of their inherent "right to hold and acquire property", only to see them conspicuously absent in discussions on the preservation of other, more fundamental, issues of human rights and civil liberties. Am I suggesting that no libertarians consider broader freedoms and liberties to be as important as those concerning property? Hardly, but - again speaking only from my limited on-line and real-life experiences - it seems as though many nominal libertarians use this broader philosophy of "maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" to justify their own egoistic pursuits, rather than through any inherent, strongly-held beliefs about the inherent rights of human beings to genuine freedom and liberty. Many fail to realise that it is only through the fervent defense of other, more primary rights, that the right to property can exist at all.

I'm not sure that very many government programs of "wealth redistribution" can rightly be classified as "[measures] to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in society." What constitutes a "basic living standard" is an awfully subjective matter. I should hardly think, for instance, that access to the most cutting-edge medical technologies qualifies as such, given that our ancestors lived fulfilling lives for thousands of years without access to these "wonderful" but usually unnecessary innovations. That said, I don't believe that "property rights" are particularly sound objection to these programs, so much as that the programs themselves, regardless of who is paying for them, are inherently wasteful and superfluous.

It's true that many libertarians seem to neglect the many of the issues that should concern them the most, but that's not a characteristic that seems to be exclusive to them. "Liberals" spend far more time in my experience squabbling over racial statistics - when race can't even be objectively said to exist - then they do making meaninful strides to improve public education. And I need not point out that "conservatives" seem content to ignore the massive government spending they're "supposed" to abhor in favor of ridiculous crusades against ephemeral "terrorist" spooks.

I find that the "rabble" (to borrow from Nietzsche) simply regurgitate the issues that the power players spoon feed to them: the materialistic "property rights," all those damn closet racists, and the turban-wearing hatemonger are more red herrings than anything else, crafted specifically to enflame the emotions of the rank-and-file rather than to make any kind of legitimate philosophical or political statement. And that's precisely why they're the ones you hear so much about.

Good post, I’ll try to address it thoroughly but to do so I’m going to have to do it in bits and pieces (I can’t stay up too late tonight). You can feel free to wait until the conclusion of my arguments before you address them.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If we accept the dictionary.com definition of a "libertarian", in the broadest of senses, as "one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" then there would seem to be a marked dicontinuity between these broad goals of the libertarian philosophy and the goals of many (if not most) nominal libertarians. I'm only basing this on my limited experiences with these so-called "nominal libertarians" on messageboards such as this one and in real life, but it seems to me that - for all this noble talk of commitment to "individual rights" and "minimising the role of the state" - many libertarians don't really seem to be overly outspoken on, or committed to, anything within the libertarian philosophy other than the unimpeded pursuit of personal wealth. Perhaps it's just my imagination - or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places - but when I read libertarians discussing their commitment to "freedom", "liberty" and "individualism" it almost always seems to be framed in an economic context and usually in a very narrow economic context at that. The hot-topics for such libertarians tend to include the reduction of taxes, the abolishion or minimisation of government funded instututions (included health-care, education, welfare etc.) and precious little else. Here, it seems, that these libertarians have interpreted the concept of "personal freedom" in solely materialistic terms and that any infringement on the "right" of the individual to accrue property and capital must therefore be a direct infringement on his inherent personal freedoms. The problem here, I believe, stems from a (usually willful) misunderstanding of the mechanics of "human freedom", how it may best be preserved and how the right to the individual maximisation of wealth fits into all this.

Hmmm well it seemed to me that the libertarians on this forum were myself, Neophono, and Trancer-X. I thought the others you mentioned were Republicans, or am I wrong? Anyway from the group of people I outlined, I’m not sure that it can be said that we, or I, wasn’t as committed towards individual freedoms as economic freedoms.

quote:

Firstly, it seems to be a common misunderstanding that freedom can only be cultivated and preserved on an individual level - that is, that a "free" society is one in which individuals have the maximum amount of "freedom" to act as they please. This perspective is ignorant of the fact that it is only within the context of a "society" - that is, a mass of people living in close geographic proximity with other, sharing a very broad, general ethos - that such freedoms can ever arise (is it possible to be free, for instance, within an anarchic collection of individuals acting, as objectivist libertarians would argue that they would, entirely egoistically? Can such a concept as an inherent right to personal property, for instance, ever exist in such a "society"?). Furthermore, it is only through the method of inter-subjective codification of societal norms that freedoms can ever be preserved (i.e. the concepts of personal property can only ever be preserved where the vast majority of citizens assent to and abide by them). In this sense, the notion of "individual freedom" as many libertarians envisage it (i.e. freedom from society and one's responsibility to it) is self-defeating, as such economic liberty cannot be preserved on an individual basis, only on a societal one.

I think you’re misconstruing the general libertarian philosophy. Sure you can find offshoots of libertarianism who are almost anarchists, which you seem to depict as the average libertarian, but we’ve been through this argument so many times when conservatives have attacked socialism. Obviously there is a wide spectrum of socialists such that we it would be erroneous to attempt to pigeon hole the socialism philosophy as a whole into one specific all defining argument or generality.

The most basic definition for libertarianism to me is limited government and individual rights. Not no government, not no society, and not even limited society. Libertarianism to me does not restrict, in any way whatsoever, societal interactions and cooperation. As a matter of fact, I’ve never heard a libertarian argue for freedom from society. I thought of libertarians as those who argue that human beings are ends in themselves, that they have rights (either natural, consequential, or existential) and who argue that these rights precede government. Because rights precede government, libertarians argue that there are things that government may not do, not dismiss government altogether. The reason why libertarianism is not simply anarchism is because its philosophy recognizes the need to maximize societal prosperity without the infringement of individual freedoms, and this requires some government role. As a matter of fact, I think that one of the general libertarianism causes for complaint is that the current state of government disrupts and restricts free societal interaction, not that the theory of societal interaction and cooperation itself is the problem. As a matter of fact the absence of societal coherence would undermine libertarianism, not just the movement but the philosophy itself. If in an anarchistic society where one is allowed unlimited individual freedoms, invites the violation of another individual’s freedoms through theft, murder, and crime in general. Thus calling for the abolishment of society or government in general goes against the libertarian movement. Anyway, I can address the rest of your arguments tomorrow.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on May-02-2005 at 04:23

Oh what the hell, let’s just get it out of the way now. I’ve read your later comments and I don’t think 50% of them are directed towards me or the actual libertarian philosophy anyway .

quote:

To quote Thomas Paine from Agrarian Justice: http://www.cooperativeindividualism...justice_03.html In other words, it makes no sense to speak of "individual property rights" without acknowledging the fact that such rights can only occur within the context of society and the libertarian mantra, therefore, that wealth is accrued individually, solely through hard-work and initiative (and that - therefore - no sense of responsibility is owed to the collective) is completely ill-founded.

I somewhat disagree with that assessment depending upon the definition you have for what kind of responsibility is “owed” to the collective. Do you have a responsibility to repay society what society provided to you to succeed? Of course. If you had the advantages of a good education, good health care, unemployment insurance, etc., that was provided by society that allowed you to succeed or helped you if you had failed, than you have an obligation to provide as equal an opportunity to others. But should you have a responsibility to society beyond that if every member of society has had the same opportunities as yourself except they lacked the individual hard work and initiative that you displayed? Not in my opinion.

quote:

Secondly, to continue from the last point, there seems to be some confusion about the correlation between between the concepts of "freedom" and "responsibility". These concepts don't have an inverse relationship (i.e. reponsibility declines as freedom increases), but rather a direct one (i.e. responsibility increases in direct proportion to the increase of freedom). So, as more personal freedoms are granted, the responsibility placed upon the inidividual to act morally increases commensurably. (This is a difficult existential concept to simply explain, but think of it like this: there is a greater personal onus on the individual with a wide scope of choice to act morally than there is on the individual with a narrow scope of choice. If we are prepared to reject authoritarian moral determinism - that is, institutional moral orthydoxy from the government, churches etc. - and accept, therefore, that we are condemned to choose freely from a virtual infinity of courses of actions, we must also accept that we - solely - are responsible for the actions we commit to. In this sense, if libertarians wish to preach a doctrine of individual freedom, then they must also accept the notion of individual moral responsbility in both a personal and societal context.) If we therefore view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal freedom, then it stands to reason that we we must also view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal responsibility - both to ourselves and to our fellow man. If the egoistic pursuit of wealth ever transcends this sense of responsbility (and I'm not saying that it necessarily does) then it becomes an inauthentic and self-negating political philosophy. Freedom cannot exist where responsiblity does not and vice-versa. [quote] Thirdly - and this is my main criticism of the "nominal libertarians" I mentioned earlier - rights to property and the accrual of wealth are important rights, but not the most important ones (much less the only ones). To again quote Thomas Paine, this time from Dissertation on First Principles of Government: http://www.cooperativeindividualism...first_prin.html

No disagreement there.

quote:

It never ceases to frustrate me when I see the fervor with which these sorts of libertarians defend the right to the "fruits of their labour" (i.e. paying as little tax as possible) or voice their opposition to the concept of "wealth redistribution" (i.e. any measure that attempts to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in a society) on the grounds of their inherent "right to hold and acquire property", only to see them conspicuously absent in discussions on the preservation of other, more fundamental, issues of human rights and civil liberties. Am I suggesting that no libertarians consider broader freedoms and liberties to be as important as those concerning property? Hardly, but - again speaking only from my limited on-line and real-life experiences - it seems as though many nominal libertarians use this broader philosophy of "maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" to justify their own egoistic pursuits, rather than through any inherent, strongly-held beliefs about the inherent rights of human beings to genuine freedom and liberty. Many fail to realise that it is only through the fervent defense of other, more primary rights, that the right to property can exist at all. As an example, I point to GOP voting libertarians (such as Shakka, Neo Phono and Imokruok - although not just to these posters, nor only to GOP-voting libertarians) who appear to condone - or at least fail to be vociferous in their opposition to - many of issues that should be central to the libertarian philosophy. For instance, where is the outrage - that is, the same outrage always directed against progressive taxation and public welfare - against: Human rights abuses. (Here's a good place to start.) Infringments on civil liberties. (For instance anti-choice doctrines concerning gay marriage, abortion and euthenasia, the imposition of the PATRIOT Act, Orwellian "free-speech zones" etc.) Federalism. (Denying states the right to legislate, independently, on above issues and others.) Unambiguously interventionalist foreign policies. Massive, unstainable levels of government spending. Among other things. In fact, the only things that I see the GOP and libertarians as having in common currently are: Low taxes. A desire to reform social security and reduce "dependancy" on welfare. [A lack of] gun control. Where the government, under the current administration, has grown far larger in far more areas than it ever was under Democratic governments, it seems that the libertarians are prepared to remain quiet so long as no infringements are made on their "property rights" (or, in some cases, "gun rights"). Why is this so? To the GOP-voting libertarians, how can you overlook their gross infringement on so many essential freedoms and liberties (that, in most cases - if you are to believe myself and Thomas Paine - are necessary to preserve these "property rights")? To the non-GOP-voting libertarians (Capitalizt etc.), why do you seem so indifferent in your defense of these liberties? Have I just not been noticing you, or do you genuinely only really care about your "right" to the unimpeded pursuit of wealth? Note that this isn't just an open slight on the libertarian philosophy, but rather an expression of disappointment in the commitment of some libertarians to its essential aims. As someone who considers himself a "classicial liberal" (influenced heavily, in case you couldn't guess, by Thomas Paine) I should be finding myself siding with you on many, if not most issues. As it happens, though, I seem to find myself either disagreeing with you on many issues (mainly economic ones) or left feeling completely abandoned by your complicit silence on most others (human rights, civil liberties etc.) So, come on libertarians, here's an open question to all of you: What do you consider to be most important: the preservation of freedoms and liberties or the size of your wallet? [Apologies for the long post. It was only meant to be a couple of paragraphs when I first started it. ]

Ok now it seems like you’re addressing your arguments to specific group of people as opposed to “libertarians” in general .

___________________
Retro ...

Your body and your labor are what you use to earn property. Without property rights, by definition, you are a slave. This is why economic freedom is so important to Libertarians. Without freedom in the economic realm, your other rights and "freedoms" are absolutely meaningless.

Last edited by Capitalizt on May-02-2005 at 12:34

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I somewhat disagree with that assessment depending upon the definition you have for what kind of responsibility is “owed” to the collective. Do you have a responsibility to repay society what society provided to you to succeed? Of course. If you had the advantages of a good education, good health care, unemployment insurance, etc., that was provided by society that allowed you to succeed or helped you if you had failed, than you have an obligation to provide as equal an opportunity to others. But should you have a responsibility to society beyond that if every member of society has had the same opportunities as yourself except they lacked the individual hard work and initiative that you displayed? Not in my opinion.

You'll find the most successful libertarians to also be the most generous philanthropists...
They understand that giving back to the society that has rewarded them for their personal efforts is only right.
Of course there will be the odd tightwad that will paint libertarians as 'greedy' but that has never been in my personal experience.
Those that act greedy I've found look and smell good but really aren't truly wealthy; they've skimped and penny-pinched their way to riches but in doing so have become jaded and paranoid towards those that ask for money from them.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

I guess as a self-proclaimed libertarian and perhaps part of the "nominal bunch" talked about, I should throw in my own views on the subject.

I consider myself to perhaps a hybrid libertarian, in that besides the basic functions of the government; defense, coining of money, etc., it has one important role that most libertarians do not believe it should have. That being educator.

I believe for a truly libertarian society to exist, it needs to be well educated. The assumption I have as a libertarian is that others have the ability to make informed, educated decisions for themselves that will not only help the individual but society as well. This also falls into line with my other belief that that government should not be setup to run for society's lowest common denominator.

Getting to the point that renegade is making in that most libertarians are economically oriented, I would agree, but only in that economic discussions tend to dominate most areas in which libertarians tend to comment. I personally believe individual freedoms should extend in all areas, such as legalization of marijuana, etc., but taxes do play a major role in my beliefs as a libertarian. Going back to my original statement, I tend to believe that the educated individual is much more efficient in handling his/her money when it comes to the things the government tries to do for us, such as welfare, retirement savings and other "entitlement" programs. However, the educated individual is also vastly superior in being able to make decisions about other personal freedomes.

I guess the bottom line for me is that the educated individual will always be superior in managing freedoms, money and what is best for the individual and society than a large, disorganized, slow, expensive government.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess the bottom line for me is that the educated individual will always be superior in managing freedoms, money and what is best for the individual and society than a large, disorganized, slow, expensive government.

Exactly. Good points

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess the bottom line for me is that the educated individual will always be superior in managing freedoms, money and what is best for the individual and society than a large, disorganized, slow, expensive government.

Agreed, let us survive on our own merit. I would write a long well thought out post....but I need to keep my job so I can pay for everyone else.

If you have the time for several pages of postings, your career must not be that demanding of your time.

Cheers for the responses guys. I've been working a fair bit recently, have had uni work piling up and was sick over most of the weekend so I haven't had the chance to reply for a while, but it's coming as soon as I get the chance...

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/